I'll make any memes you want, reply to this with your ideas, I'll make it happen. The CIA has a massive meme WAR ROOM believe it or not, they have bots too and consider this technique their most effective weapon . So its time well spent, crushing the competition

yes, it takes a certain level of thinking to see that fractured, goalless, competing narratives all eventually become a power struggle over whose narrative is "right" or "wrong"

and it takes even more intellect to realize that this ideology develops an economy of ideas that, as an example, imposes those who have been "underserved" or "under-represented" to gain a larger voice (because they're right! and other people are racists) -- at the expense of those who have traditionally had a voice. this is done through forceful redistribution. take from the haves, and give to the have nots -- money, voice, representation, educational attainment, etc. it's okay, because people are "oppressed" and need representation.

and guess who's here to represent them? me! i'm right. you're wrong. you're not allowed to talk, because you're a racist. i'm on the side of justice, how DARE you try to critique my ideas!

moreover, it takes a special intellect to understand that this economy of ideas doesn't lead to utopia, but instead, leads to everyone shouting at each other about equal distribution of power. but in reality they themselves are actually in-fighting about who gets to redistribute the power under their own control. those who are doing the redistributing have effectively stolen power/money/resources from those who have, with no actual actions taken instead of calling people 'racist' or 'privileged' (or bourgeoisie). once taken, they give it back to those who they deem as worthy. all the while, gaining massive power and influence for themselves with no interest in sharing it.

You're getting biological sex and gender mixed up. Sex in a healthy human is a binary definition of either male or female. "Gender" is academically accepted and defined as the set of traits, characteristics, personalities, and supposed aptitudes that are socially constructed and assigned to people belonging to the respective sex. The problem is not everybody feels that the gender assigned to their biological sex is congruent with how they feel inside. It is scientifically, medically, philosophically and otherwise accepted that this is the case. The academic study of gender across the entire world is based on this principal. With all due respect, you need to do some research before getting into discussions about things that you clearly do not know about.

You're right. The decorated veteran, lifelong Republican, praised by both sides of the aisle, head of the most accomplished prosecutorial team ever assembled, appointed to that role by Republicans, is as crooked as they come.

“The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, who slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind………the slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. The one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a personal policy secures.” -Adolf Hitler from “Mein Kampf”

Heres a quote from the CNN article on the same topic
"In one instance, the program looked at video footage of a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet surrounded by a glowing object of unknown origin traveling at a high rate of speed in a location that officials declined to identify, the paper said.

That's why there needs to be a collective effort to change the laws around this issue, it's crazy how American ISP's have so much power that competition isn't allowed or can't afford to set up anything.

So that people considered highly valuable for their knowledge are free to take public/political stands with no threat of being silenced by political/institutional agents?

Yes, it is. As I said, I think he should voluntarily resign if he plans to continue on with his current career trajectory, I do not necessarily think that the University should simply fire him.

Further, my problem is not so much with Peterson taking public/political stands - as is the right of every Professor - rather, it's that he appears to be devoting himself more-or-less full time to these causes. Now obviously I don't know the man personally so I don't have a full accounting of how he spends each day, but given circumstantial evidence like his social media presence, self-promotion, research output, and speaking engagements since he rose to public prominence a year and a bit ago, I think it is not unreasonable to guess that he has spent more time wearing his "Jordan Peterson, public figure" hat than he has wearing his "Jordan Peterson, Professor of Psychology at a tier-1 research school" hat.

Moreover, given that he is crowd-sourcing 70k a month ostensibly to construct an entire parallel online education system and has floated the idea of going on a full-fledged North American speaking tour, it appears to me that he plans to continue to transition more and more towards being a public intellectual. As a logical corollary to this, we can assume he plans to spend less time supervising graduate students, teaching undergraduate courses, and conducting original academic research.

Hence, since these are the things he is paid a salary for as a University Prof, I think if this trajectory is indeed accurate, a break will be called for sooner or later.

he doesn't necessarily need them anymore. His classroom lectures alone have reached more people than the combined number of students enrolled at UofT in the last 5 years.

Then he should voluntarily resign if he's more interested in being a public figure than he is with carrying out his academic duties. The university (and by extension the Canadian tax payer) pays him a six figure salary to supervise graduate students, lecture, and conduct research. If in his estimation championing freedom of expression, touring around North America for speaking engagements, and developing an online university and youtube platform are more important that is completely fine, but then he should initiate an amicable split.

People are free to disagree with me on this point, but I think there is something disingenuous about Peterson crusading against the University as an institution (going so far as to make statements that most of it is "corrupt" and beyond saving) and devoting what appears to be the bulk of his time to extra-academic projects (he even floated the idea on twitter of renting a bus and going on speaking tour full time) while at the same time opting to retain his academic post and salary.

All of these articles stating how the FCC is trying to destroy the internet; not once have I seen an article that actually explains what the FCC is trying to do. Not once have I seen an article that accurately breaks down what the proposal is.